> One example: Oh, it's a great example. You only have to read on a bit to see this: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3462759/article/45685404#45685404 https:

> One example: Oh, it's a great example. You only have to read on a bit to see this: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3462759/article/45685404#45685404 https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3462759/article/45685404#45... --- start quote --- The cost for sure will be greater than expected but it's not anything we would ask of our preorder customers. We did have to make a minor adjustment in price moving forward. --- end quote --- We don't know how much of a loss they are taking on those pre-orders. > One more: Another great example if you only understand what's written, emphasis mine: --- start quote --- We’ve said from the beginning that we wouldn’t pass any tariffs on to our backers. But that doesn’t mean we’re not getting hit by them. We are. Hard. And the costs aren’t small. So instead of a tip jar, we made something for you. Introducing the Tariff Buster Promo Pack: a small thank-you gift to help us absorb the hit While that obviously doesn’t cover the full cost of tariffs on each game, it helps us a little --- end quote --- Companies absorbing a hit and losing money on a one-off product is somehow "examples of retailers with 30%+ margins". > just saying that there are definitely exceptions to “customer pays 100% of tariffs”. These exceptions show that the only way to do that is to lose significant amounts of money to keep a promise on one-off products. None of these exceptions show that they have 30%+ margins (quite the opposite), or that they absorb them happily (quite the opposite). And yes, after pre-orders and backing have been fulfilled, if the companies don't fold after losing money, the product that hits the shelves will cost more.